• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Somebody please explain the two point attempt

SteelBuckeye said:
And yet ... we're 2-1 in the games Ben has missed this season. You can call it luck if you want. I'll take it ... and gladly.
Click to expand...

And yet...they could have been 3-0 in those games, with better decision-making from Tomlin against the Ravens. Unbeaten without Ben. Imagine that!

Win or lose, there's a disturbing pattern here. You and many others just can't (or don't want to) admit it's there.
 
topseed said:
And yet...they could have been 3-0 in those games, with better decision-making from Tomlin against the Ravens. Unbeaten without Ben. Imagine that!

Win or lose, there's a disturbing pattern here. You and many others just can't (or don't want to) admit it's there.
Click to expand...

You seemed to have glossed over or forgotten that we had a janky legged kicker that did more to submarine our opportunities at winning vs Baltimore ...It amazes me how Scobee virtually goes unscathed around here with some folks when he ****** up at his ONE JOB. Player execution contributes to wins. He makes just one of those kicks, we don't go into overtime. He didn't, he failed it cost us. HE, Scobee, cost us that game. No two ****** ways about it.
 
So we still talking about a play that had no bearing on the game whatsoever. A play where the coach and team has stated he will be aggressive on all year. A play that Landry has practiced all summer in the seven shots drill ran every practice since last year.. At least he didn't pull a Pagano and run a play with just two people over the ball vs three defenders
 
I saw the call as ok because of Landry Jones. He had just entered the game and up until he did the Steelers weren't moving the ball well. There was absolutely no reason, given Landry's pre season performance to think that was going to change. I think the thinking was that they might as well try and score some points while they were close and put it on the D to not give up a TD which they hadn't since the first qrtr. There was just no way to predict that LJ was suddenly going to start marching this team up an down the field.
 
I didn't get it and hated it as he called it. It's one thing to do it with Ben early in the game in an attempt to get the other team into an early hole and trying to chase points. But to do it after you get a 2 pt lead with your 3rd string QB in a game where points had been a premium doesn't make any sense. The argument of him "playing to win" doesn't really work because kicking the 1 point doesn't at all mean that you aren't playing for the win.
 
Last edited:
Another point I'd like to make is with a 2 or 1 point lead going for 2, you have to understand that the worst case scenario isn't failing to score the 2 points. The worst case scenario is having the defense gain possession and returning it for 2 points, which had a chance of happening when Mathews intercepted the try and started running with it.

This is why the percentages didn't work in this instance with a 3rd string QB and limited reps in practice. The game could have been tied...
 
Steel Ballin said:
dumb coaching decision....nuff said
Click to expand...

It made ZERO sense. Keep Vick in there until he got hurt was a head scratcher as well. But things like this are forgotten when the Steelers win. IMO, Tomlin stakes on bad coaching here.
 
It made zero sense? So the chance to go up four and force the cardinals to have to score a TD doesn't have any merit. Not justifying it but saying it made zero sense is a stretch
 
We won. Critiquing an administrative decision to forego an attempt at securing a three point lead in favor of an attempt to secure a four point lead shall be ridiculed and frowned upon.
 
antdrewjosh said:
It made zero sense? So the chance to go up four and force the cardinals to have to score a TD doesn't have any merit. Not justifying it but saying it made zero sense is a stretch
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree. I would have went for 2 also. Forcing a team to go for a touchdown rather than a field goal tie was a good idea. With Michael Vick in, we'd have lost in OT anyways. Who'd have thought Landry would play like he did?
 
Pens said:
Terrible play call last week but we got lucky Bell made a great play before his knee touched or Tomlin would have been grilled for having a timeout left where he could have run two plays instead of one.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I like the play for the only reason that Vick was our QB. I had no faith we would get down there again for the win.
 
thesteelcity said:
Oh, you're right, Palmer's stats are an illusion.
Click to expand...


Palmer had over 220 yds in the first half. He ended with over 400. In the first half we had nothing...The second half with Jones in there we SCORED on every possession I believe. If you want to call that "them dominating us" go ahead, but I don't see it. We held our own in the 2nd half.
 
Stainless said:
We won. Critiquing an administrative decision to forego an attempt at securing a three point lead in favor of an attempt to secure a four point lead shall be ridiculed and frowned upon.
Click to expand...
If you make the play then the pressure is on the opponent because a FG won't put them ahead. If you miss it, you're still ahead by 2. If they get a FG on their next possession then a FG by you puts you ahead. I'm okay with it.
 
Anyone think the play call that resulted in Bryant's 88 yard TD was stupid?

Would it have been stupid if it had been incomplete and stopped the clock? What if it had been picked off or Jones had been strip-sacked?
 
Troglodyte said:
Anyone think the play call that resulted in Bryant's 88 yard TD was stupid?

Would it have been stupid if it had been incomplete and stopped the clock? What if it had been picked off or Jones had been strip-sacked?
Click to expand...

That's why second guessing always works better than making real decisions.
 
Troglodyte said:
Anyone think the play call that resulted in Bryant's 88 yard TD was stupid?

Would it have been stupid if it had been incomplete and stopped the clock? What if it had been picked off or Jones had been strip-sacked?
Click to expand...

I don't and here is why.

The Cardinals were stacking the line of scrimmage to stop the run and covering both Brown and Bryant 1-on-1. Peterson had Brown. Mathieu had Bryant. Bryant is 6'4" and runs a 4.41 40. Mathieu is 5'9". No way Mathieu can stop the slant - no freaking way. Bryant is just too big and fast so Mathieu had to give him a cushion.

As a result, the play is going to give the Steelers a 1st down. That is all Haley wanted - the 1st down. He got it, and not surprisingly, Mathieu was nowhere near Bryant when Landry threw a strike to him.
 
stillwright said:
Palmer had over 220 yds in the first half. He ended with over 400. In the first half we had nothing...The second half with Jones in there we SCORED on every possession I believe. If you want to call that "them dominating us" go ahead, but I don't see it. We held our own in the 2nd half.
Click to expand...

Yards wise, they were having their way with our D, but they would bend and not break, and kept them to only 13 points. At times, they seemed like they were dominating, but the score said otherwise. In the past, we have played those games where we were kicking team's butts in every category, but would end up losing. The Raiders/Pryor game comes to mind. Somehow, we stuck with them even though Palmer was slinging it around.
 
Troglodyte said:
Anyone think the play call that resulted in Bryant's 88 yard TD was stupid?

Would it have been stupid if it had been incomplete and stopped the clock? What if it had been picked off or Jones had been strip-sacked?
Click to expand...

Before I answer, could you please explain the relevance to the subject matter at hand?
 
Troglodyte said:
Anyone think the play call that resulted in Bryant's 88 yard TD was stupid?

Would it have been stupid if it had been incomplete and stopped the clock? What if it had been picked off or Jones had been strip-sacked?
Click to expand...

"Hey everybody....lets just make **** up......."
 
Stainless said:
Before I answer, could you please explain the relevance to the subject matter at hand?
Click to expand...

Really?

Many people have a problem with going for 2 as they don't feel the risk was worth the extra point. That's easy to criticize because the play failed.

But the decision to throw the ball when trying to run out the clock was also risky (actually far more risky than going for 2) but nobody is criticizing that decision. Why? Because it worked? Or because the risk was worth the reward? If it had been disastrous, would you be defending it?

I suspect much of the criticism here is actually over the result of the 2 point attempt, and not the actual play call itself.
 
Super Dave said:
"Hey everybody....lets just make **** up......."
Click to expand...

I think you're proving my point. The absurd reasoning that whether or not a decision is stupid is contingent upon the outcome. If you win $10k playing Russian roulette, it was smart decision to play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top